Taiwan is often compared to other countries, but never to Spain.
Yet the two countries have, in many ways, followed a similar path toward democracy. That makes the comparison interesting.
Both nations face a paradox: They successfully abolished dictatorship without erasing the illegality of the regime that preceded them. There was no revolution. No tyrant was toppled. No legitimate government in exile came back. They were reformed from the inside, and the people rolled with it, because, when you are finally free from oppression, technicalities matter little.
Let us break down the facts.
The elected, democratically legitimate government of the Spanish Republic was overthrown in 1939, when the Nationalist rebels of Francisco Franco declared victory. Taiwan was handed over to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1945, and he asserted his power through force against the Taiwanese population. Both regimes received international diplomatic recognition.
Toward the end of his rule in 1969, Franco co-opted the heir of the former Spanish monarchy, Juan Carlos, as his designated successor. In Taiwan, Chiang’s son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), who had inherited the presidency, put Taiwan-born Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) first in the line of succession by appointing him vice president in 1984.
In both cases, the authoritarian ruler died, and the successor automatically inherited extensive powers: in 1975 for Juan Carlos (now king) and in 1988 for Lee.
In both cases, they relinquished those powers in favor of democracy, when they could easily have carried on as dictators.
Juan Carlos presided over the reforms that made Spain into the parliamentary democracy it is today. Lee put an end to the KMT’s dictatorship and called for elections. Both were praised for allowing their countries to embrace human rights and freedom without bloodshed.
However, both also came from within the authoritarian regimes that had buried these values for decades.
Taiwan and Spain share a lack of rupture between the oppressive regime and its democratic successor. Both still use the flag once associated with dictatorship.
The Spanish and Taiwanese enjoy freedom and human rights, and on a practical level, that is more important than symbolic correctness. However, it also means carrying a legacy of silence and real difficulty when it comes to transitional justice.
Juan Carlos and Lee navigated dangerous environments. They worked to bring democracy and freedom, but were careful not to provoke the authoritarian elements still in place — elements that could have destroyed the entire project if pushed too far.
We know Lee had to ensure hardliners would not depose him in the early years of his presidency. We saw Spain face a coup attempt in 1981, when old Francoists stormed the Spanish parliament. Juan Carlos and Lee could have been murdered by nostalgia-driven apparatchiks. They were not entirely free to do what they wanted.
However, both countries are now free. For most people, that is what matters.
However, those with personal scars are still grieving, and both countries still struggle with the weight of that legacy. Spain has its “pact of forgetting.” Taiwan is notorious for the difficulty it encounters in navigating transitional justice.
So, what to make of it?
The comparison has its limits. For one, Spain is not threatened by an external power. However, a country does not need to be entirely similar to Taiwan to offer meaningful perspective.
The point of this piece is not to offer a full-fledged analysis of what Taiwan can learn from Spain. That would require its own feature and a much more exhaustive investigation.
Rather, it is to remind readers that Taiwan should not be viewed in isolation. We too often make two mistakes: One is to compare Taiwan only to the usual cases (other Asian countries, or nations shaped by Cold War legacies); the other is to assume that Taiwan’s problems are unique and that no other country can offer inspiration.
Thinking outside the box is more fruitful. Many countries, including some that seem very different at first glance, have undergone similar transitions that can help enrich Taiwan’s ongoing democratic debate. If Taiwan needs anything today, it is precisely that: a broader, more global mindset.
Julien Oeuillet is a journalist in Taiwan. He is the founding editor of Indo-Pacific Open News. He also writes and produces radio and television programs for several English-language publications globally.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic